B. U. G. S.

NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM

Bob, when in the past I have said you write what I am thinking, I didn’t mean you verbalize my hidden beliefs. I meant that you actually write in the very words I was using that day at the same time. Do I have an implant in my neck recording what I say and think?

For example, about the time you would have been writing the above, I was reading page 111 in The Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver in regard to the debates between Webster (who was on the Rothschild’s payroll) and Hayne. To be honest, I just opened my book to this page, and it was so good, I knew it was important. Then I saw it in your blog:

“Hayne reminded Webster first of how he had shifted his position on the tariff between 1824 and 1828 and then of New England had failed to support the Union during the War of 1812, citing especially the Hartford Convention.

In the conclusion Hayne returned to the chief issue by stating the doctrine of reserved power.

The worst enemies of the Union were the promoters of consolidation.

The “Carolina doctrine” was merely a re-affirmation of the Kentucky-Virginia resolutions of ‘98. It was republican doctrine:

Sir, as to the doctrine that the Federal Government is the exclusive judge of the extent as well as the limitations of its power, it seems to me to be utterly subversive of the sovereignty and independence of the States. It makes little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or the Supreme Court, are invested with this power.

South Carolina had tried to preserve the Union by the only means through which it could be preserved — resistance to usurpation.

He closed with a quotation from Burke: “You must pardon something to the spirit of liberty.”

By this time the conflict of interests was clear… (Hayne) had managed to touch upon several of the chief topics… and he injected into the exchange one word about which the whole argument may revolve logically — the word “liberty.”

By now Bob is falling asleep, but my comment is that the South carried the day with rhetoric. Webster and company were failing over and over again in their speeches, but they used them as a delay to give them time to wrap up the financial deals they needed and to arrange that the elections soon to come would be divided four-ways. The consolidationists would need that four-way split, since they could never win the popular vote.

Rule of thumb: The powerful use debate to buy themselves time and take the good off guard.
The good use heroism and self-sacrifice, such as in the Alamo, to buy the good time and take the powerful off guard.
To buy time, each uses its own weakness. The powerful use debate (lies always lose to truth in open debate), the good use power (the Alamo was a tiny outpost and Santana headed an empire).

Comment by Pain

ME:

Yes, I WAS reading your mind. Don’t you know that I am psycho?

I mean psychIC.

Oh, hell, BOTH.